The court held that once charges are framed and witnesses have been examined, a plea for quashing proceedings is untenable, regardless of previous exoneration in departmental matters.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

Dates of hearing and Judgment : 06.02.2026 Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Sadar, Sambalpur in GR Case No.3769 of 2019 which arises out of Burla P.S. Case No.484 of 2019 and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned JMFC (I) (C.T.), Sambalpur.

BRIEF FACT

2. The Petitioner is facing trial in a case where charge-sheet dated 10.06.2020 has been submitted against him for commission the offences punishable under Sections 500/507/294 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the IPC). Cognizance of the offences had been taken by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur by order dated 02.11.2020. This order had been challenged by the Petitioner in CRLMC No.1691 of 2020 in this Court and the same had been disposed of on 02.05.2023 permitting the Petitioner to raise all the pleas urged in the petition before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. It appears that thereafter the Petitioner filed an application for discharge which was partly allowed by the learned JMFC (I) (C.T.), Sambalpur on 24.08.2023 by discharging the Petitioner from the offences under Sections 294 and 507 of the IPC and holding that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3. Mr. Surendra Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made by the informant relates to circulation of alleged defamatory emails. Such allegation even if assumed to be true, attract the offence under section 500 IPC, which is admittedly a non-cognizable offence and section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C mandates that no investigation can be conducted against the accused in an offence that is non-cognizable without express permission of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the Investigating Officer in order to bypass the said legal restriction as enshrined under Section 155(2) CrPC, deliberately and purposely added cognizable offence under sections 294 as well as offence under Section 507 IPC and registered the FIR, even though the original FIR by the complainant only mentioned alleged offence under section 500 of IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence. Referring to Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he submits that the learned Court below could not have taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC. Cognizance could be taken only on the basis of the complaint of the person aggrieved. His submission is that as Section 500 as well as Section 507 are included in Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, and as the learned Court below has already held that the offence under Sections 294 and 507 of the IPC is not made out against the Petitioner, the trial Court is proceeding against him for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC only, for which the proceeding against the Petitioner should be quashed. He also submits that having been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for the same allegation, the criminal case cannot proceed on the same allegation against the Petitioner. He submits that in the meanwhile three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the petitioner has also cross examined them but as the proceedings is not maintainable, it should be quashed. He relies on the decision in the case of Dr. Minakelana Pani Vrs State of Odisha , reported in 2022 (11) OLR-104.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE

4. Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in CRLMC No. 1691 of 202